Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Naxos Resources (NAXOF) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: GOGI who wrote (5637)	11/17/1997 9:43:00 AM
From: mark silvers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

7.125 x 8.0 on the opening

To: GOGI who wrote (5637)	11/17/1997 10:15:00 AM
From: Ed Huang	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20681

Ooooops, IPM is on sale today, only half price of last week's. What a great bargain for Jay Taylor loyal followers!! I'm very impressed by Naxos' old friend recommendation "sell Naxos and buy IPM" and by those who is willing to hold the bag till the end with great loyalty.

To: GOGI who wrote (5637)	11/17/1997 10:20:00 AM
From: Kim W. Brasington	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20681

GOGI: I believe that Greg has served Naxos well. He has developed a good relationship with permitting agencies, which is a must for any mining endeavor. Permitting is oft presented as an adversarial relationship. It need not be. Let us look at mining from federal and state agencies point of view. These agencies regard themselves as stewards. They hold the land in trust for future generations. The guidelines that have been set up (however cumbersome) are for the protection and conservation of the land we live in and its resources. A company that has serious intent to mine is readily discernable from a company that doesn't. Many permitting agents have a mining background, and are very knowledgeable concerning the law. Many of these state and federal agents have seen many a company try to make light of their area of responsibility, and try to "wing" the permits. When they slow them down, or worse find these companies in willful non-compliance, then they make them toe the line, or levy fines on them. Federal and State agencies are often understaffed so that they have to spread themselves thin to cover all of their responsibilities. Field checks may not be as frequent as they would wish, so they consider it an action of "bad-faith" to find a mining concern that has bypassed or in worse cases blatantly disregarded the law. Enter a mining concern that takes a pro-active and not an adverserial viewpoint. The mining company approaches the agencies and develops a dialogue and a relationship with them. In essence, the pro-active mining company will seek to develop trust, so that an integrated understanding within the safety of the law is built. The two biggest downfalls to a mining companies' getting permits, is if they try to : a. wing it. b. run out of permitting money. In talking with several non-American miners, they have related that permitting in the U.S. is relatively straight forward if somewhat lengthy. The perception of much of the public seems to be on either of two extremes: a. that mining is irresponsible (rogue companies - toxic wastes - superfund cleanups, paper scams, etc.) b. that federal and state agencies want to kill mining (permits not granted due to extreme environmental reasons or some agents that are on a "mission" to save the world from mining). The truth of the matter lies somewhere inbetween. The U.S. is a major mining nation in the world. The U.S. is the second largest gold producer on the face of the globe. Given reasonable approaches on both sides of the issue, both mining companies and agencies are glad to see bona-fide mines come to development, because they add revenues to the state and to the nation and add wealth to shareholders. Regards, Kim W.